Posted
by
samzenpus
on Monday September 09, 2013 @08:37AM
from the lets-try-this-again dept.

beaverdownunder writes "Silicon Valley technology conference organizers TechCrunch have been forced to apologize after two Australian men pitched a smartphone app called "Titstare" in front of a nine-year-old girl. The Sydney duo's presentation had the mainly male audience laughing, but angered Twitter users and reignited a debate about sexism in the technology sector. The two entrepreneurs — Jethro Batts, 28, and David Boulton, 24 — pitched their 'tongue in cheek' idea at TechCrunch Disrupt in San Francisco on Sunday after winning expenses for the trip to the US in a similar competition, AngelHack Sydney. In their pitch, Boulton explained to an audience of hundreds (plus thousands online) that it would allow users to 'take photos of yourself, looking at tits'. 'It's science my good friend, science,' Boulton said. TechCrunch also apologized for another pitch for a product called Circle Shake, in which a man simulated masturbation."

Objectification is conventionally considered sexism even when it doesn't contain explicit stereotypes, because it's implicitly dehumanizing.

Would it have been sexist if the talk were given by a woman? I don't know about you, but I know a few women (yes, mature adults) who would use that app. Objectification by members of the opposite sex is considered sexism by the PC crowd. When my wife does it, it's OK. Or when a woman gets breast implants so her tits will get noticed, it's OK. When my lesbian friends do it, it's OK. But when a young man does it, somehow it is now sexism?

Yes, women can be sexist. Objectification can go both ways, and can even be homosexual. Oddly, in public avenues like these, it almost always appears to come from politically dominant classes, and these hypothetical questions are almost never relevant. How strange is that?

That's called selection bias. Whenever I see it around here, it's generally women. Mainly because men are too afraid of having a spurious law suit filed against them.

Most of the lectures on equal rights are really just a cover for feminist propaganda. Tons of statistics taken out of context and god help any that bother to point out that there's cherry picking going on to make things look bad for women.

Let's get something straight. Men are not politically dominant. Rich men are politically dominant.

If men in general were politically dominant, then it wouldn't be the case that 75% of all homeless people are male while there are numerous homeless shelters that cater strictly to women.

If men in general were politically dominant, then we wouldn't have men being forced to pay child support for children that the courts acknowledge aren't even theirs.

If men in general were politically dominant, then Title IX wouldn't instruct colleges to kick out men on the mere allegation of sexual misconduct (the "preponderance of evidence" clause) rather than requiring actual evidence.

"mere allegation of sexual misconduct" does not equal "preponderance of evidence".
"Preponderance of evidence" means that if given the evidence and witnesses it's more likely that "sexual misconduct" happened, they lose.
This is apparently the standard in most civil cases in the US.
Apparently this breaks constitutional rights in some cases and is a pretty arbitrary way of ruling, IMO.

If men in general were politically dominant, then it wouldn't be the case that 75% of all homeless people are male

Homelessness is often correlated with mental illness, which is preponderant in men. Next.

there are numerous homeless shelters that cater strictly to women.

Those are battered women shelters. Domestic abuse is still heavily skewed towards women being victims, largely because they are on average physically weaker.

If men in general were politically dominant, then we wouldn't have men being forced to pay child support for children that the courts acknowledge aren't even theirs.

A single anecdote based on a time frame where men where so dominant socially and politically that a divorced mother would be condemned to a life of abject poverty. The reason for these laws is because it used to be that women were incapable of finding jobs anything other than secretaries or nurses. Add to that that mothers were in the vast majority of cases "home makers", being divorced was close to a poverty sentence.

If men in general were politically dominant, then Title IX wouldn't instruct colleges to kick out men on the mere allegation of sexual misconduct (the "preponderance of evidence" clause) rather than requiring actual evidence.

You watched too much CSI. Preponderance of evidence is the standard for any civil case. Which is what Title IX cases fall under.

I agree that some feminist claims, as well as laws designed to deal with male supremacy need to be revisited. But your examples aren't helping your argument.

Oddly, in public avenues like these, it almost always appears to come from politically dominant classes, and these hypothetical questions are almost never relevant.

That is simply untrue. For example, in the last big media hoopla about this, it was Adria Richards complaining about men making a joke about 'dongles' after she had, at the exact same event, made a joke about stuffing socks in your pants to make the TSA think they were your dick. The only reason you think that the jokes come predominantly from men is because you are a misandrist.

Once upon a time these things had a meaningful definition but now everything that's bad or insensitive gets clumped there even though it's miles away from the original concept. Thus, now we get to live in a world where making stereotypical joke is conventionally considered the same as genuinely claiming that some groups of people are inferior to others and discriminating against them is okay.

Objectification of women is conventionally considered sexism. Objectification of men is just hunky dory. Seems to me that women ought to clean their own house before bitching about when men do it. Or at least make some meaningful effort to do so.

Not to mention all the TV, movies and video games that reduce the role of a man to a paycheck or cannon fodder.

Case in point, I was watching UK X-Factor this weekend and one of the hosts (Nicole Scherzinger) acted inappropriately when a 17 year old boy began yodeling. She acted overtly flirtatious towards him, started swaying and dancing and touching herself suggestively and commented on his looks (calling him hot, delicious, etc). Her comments and her "female gaze" and the disparity in power (host vs contenstant, age, social status, etc) made the whole thing very objectifying.

As far as I know, nobody has made a big deal of it.

Now if one of the male judges acted the same way towards an underage female contestant, it would be an outrage and accusations of sexism and pedophilia would fly about.

Case in point. St. Mary's University in Nova Scotia, Canada [www.cbc.ca]. Have a look at some of the outrage there. Drunk students during frosh week sang a chant that's been going on for a couple of years. "Young, Y = Your sister, O = Oh, so tight, U = Under age, N = No consent, G = Grab that ass, St. Mary's boys like them young".

The students that took part in the chant were sent for sensitivity training. It seems like everyone and their dog wanted these kids expelled and sent to jail for conspiracy to commit a criminal act. Anyone that says, it's a bunch of stupid drunk teens out on their own for the first time is met with accusations of being pedophiles and death threats.

Read the comment section, there are tons of people throwing outrage and expect the boys to be castrated, despite the fact that more than half of the participants were female.

To be fair, advocating a felony is actually an exception to free-speech, and would likely have been sent to jail for suggesting murder instead of rape with their chant. People tend to not have a sense of humor about things where they think their safety is actively being threatened.

For every anecdote like this you can find one showing how women were treated unfairly. Claims of rape being dismissed, saying she was "asking for it" because of the way she dressed or because she got drunk. There was a case on the radio a few weeks ago where a woman was being divorced but because she couldn't get a state lawyer under new rules and her husband was the only one with an income his lawyer was taking her for everything she was worth, including the kids.

I think it really degrades the seriousness of rape when people start throwing out false stats and claims.

I was having a facebook back and forth on objectification of women in advertising with an old friend of mine. I met her when she was doing her BA and I was in Com. Sci. She's getting a Psy. D. now and majoring in sociology, but specializing in women's studies. At some point in the conversation she told me 1 in 4 girls are raped at university. I assume she's the expert and was quite shocked because I wo

I'm not necessarily suggesting that they're equally sized problems, but the attention paid to the objectification of men is practically zilch. It's OK to portray men as cannon fodder, but somehow suggest that women are sexy and somehow that's crossing the line.

Objectification is conventionally considered sexism even when it doesn't contain explicit stereotypes

Among people in the Grievance Studies majors and similar folks prone to using terms like "objectification" and "<something>-justice", yes. In the real world, not so much.

because it's implicitly dehumanizing.

Perhaps they're implying it, and perhaps you're merely inferring it. There is a difference, and people of the above-mentioned mindset tend both to ignore or to not realize the difference, and to be downright eager to detect it if they aren't already to the point where they see it in everything 24/7 already.

So it's wrong for a guy to talk about "taking a picture of yourself staring at tits" and to simulate masturbation in public, but it's perfectly all right for Miley Cyrus to do the same (and more!) on national television in front of millions of people? I guess they should have done it on MTV; then it would have been ok.

I was going to agree with your point on the difference between Miley Cyrus at an awards show, and a tech conference, but then I started typing "Awards Show" and realized that the titstare app at a tech conference is far more relevant than Miley Cyrus gyrating half naked with furries at an awards show.

You also have the nice piece of logic "well someone else did something bad so this bad thing is ok too".

I'm not going to side with the parent poster, but the logic he is trying to employ is the same logic that gets used to show discrimination when it isn't white men. If drivers who are black and speeding get tic

While I don't approve of either act, there's a difference for what an entertainer does onstage and what happens in a supposedly "professional" environment.

Entertainers do crazy stuff onstage for attention all the time. This is the industry that gave us Lady Gaga and Kylie Minogue, and introduced the term "wardrobe malfunction." It's a show. It's designed to provoke, and entertain. If you're not into it, don't watch MTV (I don't understand why anyone would have in the last 10 years, but there I go being

From the reaction shots in the audience, particularly that of Will Smith and his family, I did not get the impression that the majority were in the "You go girl!" camp. Most seemed shocked, a few started to fully comprehend what they were seeing and they were not pleased. Cyrus may have gained some "cred" with her intended audience, but somehow I think there are a few Hollywood parties that she won't be invited to.

Supporting feminism has nothing to do with your gender or sexual preference. It's about recognizing that women are still not treated with equal regard and respect in certain spheres -- the tech sphere being one of them.

If you support the rights and reproductive freedoms of your sisters, daughters, female friends, girlfriends, wife, and mother, then you might find interesting news and political writing on feminist blogs. If you're unconcerned about these issues but are curious about why so many women are angry at the treatment they get in society, you might want to read a few of those blogs to get an idea.

Your loss, my friend. Feminists are just people who believe that women should receive equal pay for equal work, should have the right to control their own bodies, and should have the right to be treated with respect regardless of what they're wearing.

You're so naive! If that's all feminists want, they should unify around that message instead of all the garbage about the patriarchy. I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said? Don't pretend that type of feminism doesn't also exist.

Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.

You're so naive! If that's all feminists want, they should unify around that message instead of all the garbage about the patriarchy. I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said? Don't pretend that type of feminism doesn't also exist.

Of course that type of extremist feminism exists. So does the type of Christianity which believes that Jews are servants of Satan. Should we judge all Christians because a small percentage of self-declared Christians are irrational bigots? No. So don't pick the most radical fringe of self-declared feminism and argue that all feminists are like that. Because if you know better, then you're arguing disingenuously; and if you don't know better, then you're the one who's naive.

Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.

If it becomes commonplace for a man to be roofied and gang-raped by a bunch of women, and then told by the cops "well, he was asking for it because he was dressed provocatively", then I'll believe that we've achieved parity. But we both know that won't happen.

And if you don't believe in the right of all people to be treated with basic human respect regardless of gender and appearance, then you're on the wrong side of history.

I mean really, what does the crusade against the word "women" (womyn!!!) have to do with what you said?

Any group can be dismissed as extremist by simply focusing on the most extreme members. Extreme environmentalists who want to return to an agrarian society, extreme nuclear advocates who want mandatory irradiation of children, extreme animal rights activists, extreme right/left wing political activists, extreme followers of religion etc. They don't represent the majority or the mainstream view, but people love to bring them up in an argument because they are an easy straw man to knock down.

Also I disagree with the right to be treated with respect regardless of what you wear. That does not exist for either sex.

There are plenty of variations of feminism, but the most vocal are the kind that don't just want to be treated as equals, they want to be superior.

Also, none of the smart geek girls I know are feminists, they don't have to.They usually handle working around men quite well while still being feminine. In fact almost all of them prefer that to all-women workspaces. And if they do a good job (and they do because they are smart;)), not only they get all due respect but they are also defended by their colleagues in case someone gets the wrong idea.

Jesus. Why do you change the subject? Did I or anyone say it's okay to present graphic violence as entertainment? You are deflecting from discussion about what these two grown men did at a professional conference, which many people attended for the technical information. When you buy a ticket to a movie or a performance, you have a general idea of what you are going to get. If you want to see gratuitous sex and/or violence, you may choose to do so. And others may choose not to. When at a professional conference, the intent is altogether different. People are there for a variety of reasons, and having these men push their sexist, misogynist agenda on them is wrong.

That's indicative of the whole problem here. Yes, this is exactly what sexism is: "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" (from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism [merriam-webster.com])

Titstare just seems like a satire on the completely pointless app genre that seems to be the new popular thing to do if you are a young hip coder looking to score big in the new social/app bubble we are in.

Didn't Facebook start as a way to rank girl's appearance at Harvard? Who's to fault these guys, they could be the next Zuckerberg. Titstare is (however tongue-in-cheek) indicative of the trend of creat

I'm with you on this.... but at the same time, since "EVERYONE does this stuff", why keep trying to make it into a bigger deal than it really is with such things as lame smartphone apps featuring or simulating the behaviors?

It's not sexist per-se, it's just degrading to women. Let's stop arguing about semantics and get back to the issue.

Are phenomena like boy-bands sexist against men?

They are certainly degrading to some extent. Most men can never look like those made-up and airbrushed guys, selected purely based on looks. Since many of them can't even sing or write songs they are purely there for the way they look it definitely is objectification of men based on an unrealistic and unobtainable fantasy image of the male body.

The real problem is that we have reached the point where the puritanical values have caused men's reactions to breasts to become national news, and to where breastfeeding mothers are made to feel they are doing something shameful.

Stupid, stupid Americans. I doubt the Aussies even considered America's hypersensitivity in the process.

Oh, ffs, the reason you don't make category-targetted jokes like this isn't because it causes offense (it does, and people are entitled to be offended, but that's neither here nor there), but because it's a pointed act of exclusion. Some people are offended by my use of the term "ffs", and that's fine, they are right to be offended, and I'm being offensive here for a reason. But I'm not in the process of making this point telling those same people that they're not welcome in this discussion. Approvingly presenting a product about staring at women's chests in a technology conference very much is.

Part of being a functional adult is being able to navigate the society you live in. Telling tit jokes to a mixed audience is not adult behavior.

Mixed audience? What is this, the 1950's?

Part of the whole thing about treating women equally is giving up on the ridiculous concept that women aren't interested in sex and that, as a result, sex jokes are only appropriate around males. Women have tits, men sometimes stare at them, pictures that catch them in the act is funny. There's no reason women shouldn't hear this joke, or feel threatened by it.

The problem isn't that these people weren't "acting as adults." The problem is that a society that freaks out when a boob is shown for half a second in the middle of the superbowl aren't acting like adults. It's a fucking body part. It's not going to scar children for life. They've all seen it before and sucked upon it.

So you think equality means that you can tell sexist jokes freely in any context? Yes women like sex but that does not mean that apps that simulate masturbation aren't offensive.

One part of sexual equality that women want is to stop being objectified. And these apps just continue that. Granted this is not really a technical conference (it's just a "show us your apps" get together), but can you imagine this behavior elsewhere? Do accountants at a conference see presentations entitled "Comply With Sorbane

Part of the whole thing about treating women equally is giving up on the ridiculous concept that women aren't interested in sex and that, as a result, sex jokes are only appropriate around males. Women have tits, men sometimes stare at them, pictures that catch them in the act is funny. There's no reason women shouldn't hear this joke, or feel threatened by it.

The problem isn't that these people weren't "acting as adults." The problem is that a society that freaks out when a boob is shown for half a second in the middle of the superbowl aren't acting like adults. It's a fucking body part. It's not going to scar children for life. They've all seen it before and sucked upon it.

It's about context. Telling sexual jokes in a comedy club when they're expecting and receptive to it is fine. Telling sexual jokes in a tech conference where women are already an objectified minority who are dealing with a lot of unwanted sexual attention is not.

No True Adult would tell tit jokes to a mixed audience. They must not be... True Adults!

Now, that's just vague. Who are you to decide that people who tell certain types of jokes don't act like adults (Whatever that means; it's subjective nonsense as far as I'm concerned.)?

I agree it is hard to set unambiguous rules on what it takes to be a respectable adult. The complex nature of social human interaction is one reason why creating human-like AI is so hard.

But luckily humans are not restricted to robot-like rule sets when determining appropriate behavior. Anyone who has trouble understanding why tit jokes in a professional mixed audience are a bad idea has some serious developmental issues. Either that or they are just an argumentative ass.

Just because something is subjective (like respectable behavior) does not mean people should disregard that it exists.

But luckily humans are not restricted to robot-like rule sets when determining appropriate behavior. Anyone who has trouble understanding why tit jokes in a professional mixed audience are a bad idea has some serious developmental issues.

Wait, but you just said...

So.. humans aren't restricted to robot-like rules, but any person who doesn't understand why they should have to adhere to an arbitrary set of robot-like rules "has some serious developmental issues?"

Second thought - if this is a "professional mixed audience," why the fuck was a 9-year-old in attendance? Are child labor laws a bit more lax down under, or am I missing something here?

Heard it wrong. The percentages are what I remember but it was for computer science degree graduates for women; 37% in 1985, 18% in 2010. I was a university senior in 1985 and we were talking about the problem of there not being so many women in comput

why the fuck was a 9-year-old in attendance? Are child labor laws a bit more lax down under, or am I missing something here?

This struck me immediately. This was clearly an adult event. I have no problem with parents deciding that their child is mature enough to handle going to an adult event, but it is ridiculous to get upset that someone at the adult event presented material that was offensive because your child was too young to see it.

Of course, I highly question whether Titstare is anything more offensive than this nine year old girl sees on a regular basis. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the rack of women's magazines that she would be seeing while standing in line at the grocery store with her parents. It certainly isn't any more sexualized than the 8 foot posters in the windows of Victoria Secrets at the mall. And it certainly isn't any more sexualized than the commercials that play on TV either in her own home, or in the many places outside her home that have TVs playing.

This isn't about offensive material being presented to a child. This reeks of the same kind of misandrist behavior that we saw with the Adria Richards situation. A situation where 'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'.

No, it was clearly a professional event. Learn the difference between age and professionalism.

I would have been offended by the lack or professionalism they had. As someone who has been in the industry for over a quarter a century, this shit needs to stop. It's hurting the industry.

"This isn't about offensive material being presented to a child"Correct, its about the completely lack of professionalism, and offending half the population. It's about idiots like these making women uncomfortable, and it's about ending the boys room attitude rampant in the industry.

'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'

did the girl tell a sexist joke? no? then it's not the same fucking thing, is it?

I have never seen a professional conference before the last decade that would have presented anything a 9 year old would have been offended or shocked by. It's only recently that this juvenile male behavior has started coming out in force, and even then only in a programming conferences for apps or interpreted languages.

And yes, a simulated masturbation app is more crude and sexualized than you will see in a store checkout line.

But who cares if the 9 year old sees this stuff in public? Can't a conference

This reeks of the same kind of misandrist behavior that we saw with the Adria Richards situation. A situation where 'sexual jokes are fine if your a woman, but if you have a penis, sexual jokes make you evil'.

I agree with your position about Adria Richards, but in her case, the jokes weren't about women, they were about penises and sex. She just assumed they were about women, and for whatever reason, asserted that they were degrading to women.

No one is claiming *all* men are like this, but some are - and it is a problem. Victim blaming and closing your eyes won't help solve a very real problem (http://www.marieclaire.com/career-money/jobs/geeks-attack). This is not an isolated problem - its an indicative incident and a teaching moment. Let's not waste it by jamming our fingers in our ears and humming angrily. Let's listen.

Everyone seems to be focussing on "Titstare" which was admittedly juvenile, sexist and potentially offensive. It may just be me, but what's the problem with "Circle Shake". It was juvenile and potentially offensive, but was it sexist? It keeps getting mentioned in the same breath but I just don't see the comparison. One was objectifying women, the other was a joke about masturbation.

It's 2013 and a black guy's President. Not that black people - or rather, people in general - should not be on guard for it... But the current media frenzy over making every single goddamned thing that happens a racial issue? Time to put Sharpton and Friends into the closet. Keep picking at a wound and it won't heal. Keep pretending we're still in the 60s and we'll never leave them.

Maybe if you live up north, but down here the differences are a lot less dramatic. "Stop talking about racism" will be a good idea eventually, but we're not to the point yet where we can just let it drop.

Yeah, remember when we didn't talk about racism back in the early 1800s. Not a peep of discrimination then. Morgan Freeman is an actor, distanced by a fuck-ton of money and a great deal of celebrity from the day-to-day discrimination that a lot of African Americans face.

It's not your job to get outraged, but that doesn't mean that horrible things aren't happening.

In what way is staring/commenting on a womans tits "not treating them like a human being"? Its very easy to know that women are humans and still admire a nice set of tits. Just like a woman can know a man is a human and still admire his pecs or his dick or whatever. Youre an idiot.

Oh how scathing, being accused of coming to rescue of [ERROR MISSING FEMALE IN CONVERSATION] for the hope of sex with them. There is absolutely no reason to defend the notion that all people are created equal beyond combination pity-thanks sex.

Not only my comment, but the overall tone of this entire thread. The hostility and contempt shown for people, not only women but all people, is pretty sobering. And the fact that these slashdotters lack the insight and self-awareness to recognize that *they* are absolutely and undeniably the reason that many women feel unwelcome in the tech-sector is depressing.

They're useful, though, because the way people retcon their own beliefs from their behaviors (yes, really) means that people "forced" to apologize are noticably more likely than others to avoid those behaviors in the future, and change their perception of the things at issue.